Why is Passive Voice Often Viewed as Negative?

Passive voice in English is often viewed as negative because it can lead to ambiguity and weaken sentence structures. In particular, it shifts the focus from the doer of the action to the receiver, which sometimes obfuscates the intended meaning.

A primary criticism of passive voice is that it can obscure accountability. By omitting the doer, passive constructions create uncertainty about who is responsible for a particular action. Notably, this is problematic in both written and spoken communication. For instance, saying “mistakes were made” without specifying who made the mistakes reduces the statement’s impact.

Furthermore, passive voice can hinder the flow of information. Conversely, when applying active voice, the subject performs the action directly on the object. Accordingly, sentences are clearer and more concise. Meanwhile, passive voice often requires more words to convey the same information, making sentences longer and more awkward.

Moreover, passive voice can make the narrative less engaging and more detached. By comparison, active voice tends to be more dynamic, helping to maintain the reader’s interest.

In professional and academic writing, passive voice can be considered evasive. At times, authors may use it to distance themselves from their statements or to avoid taking a clear position on an issue. Critically, this can dilute the strength of their arguments.

In summary, passive voice is often accused of lacking clarity, obscuring accountability, and diminishing engagement. Although passive constructions are useful or even necessary in certain contexts, such as when the doer of the action is unknown, active voice is generally preferred.